I looked up 'paralogous genes' and found this:http://classroom.synonym.com/difference ... 18612.html"Paralogous genes are homologous genes that occur within one species and have diverged after a duplication event. Unlike orthologous genes, a paralogous gene is a new gene that holds a new function. These genes arise during gene duplication where one copy of the gene receives a mutation that gives rise to a new gene with a new function, though the function is often related to the role of the ancestral gene."

Does Mitchell bother to discuss paralogous - and orthologous - genes? Of course not. Her main argument appears to be "the scientists did not directly observe what they are inferring with regard the spiders' patella, therefore they are wrong".

She also tries to use two totally conflicting arguments. That dac1 and dac2 are too 'far' from identical for a gene duplication event to be able to explain the differences between them. But then she starts talking about 'duplicate genes' containing the 'same information'.

'No new information' does however tend to sum up YEC rebuttals of peer reviewed science papers. These scientists are carrying out an 'imaginary pursuit'? Answers in Genesis are skilled practitioners of just that.

PS In the 2015 paper 'paralogous' refers to gene duplication within a species prior to a split into two present day spider clades. In the other link, 'paralogous' refers to a new gene with new function following gene duplication event. Thus, although I am not an expert, I don't think the 2015 paper is using the term paralogous when it should be using orthologous (the third link says that orthologous genes are found when an ancestral gene and its function are maintained through a speciation event ie speciation does not change the gene's function). Maybe though, the dac1 and dac2 genes in these spiders were originally paralogous and dac2 acquired a new function, but then the two genes stayed the same as before after speciation/a split between spider clades ie they then were orthologous?